wow, the writer makes some big claims. First he claims that there is material evidence of Jesus because it's a historical event. Ironically he only states that Christians witnessed this. He also claims that other religions are not based on historic events. Where the writer gets this evidence is beyond me. He only quotes the NT. While I commend the fact that he doubts and questions, he quickly discounts any evidence or ideas outside of Christianity. So in essence, his so called reasoning is very very flawed.

Maybe it wasn't so much an issue of Christians falsifying evidence in order to get others to believe what they believed, but falsifying evidence as a means of getting others to believe what they wanted them to believe whether they themselves actually believed it or not. Religion has always been used as a tool to control the masses.

Every Xtian I meet today makes up lies that are obviously & demonstrably false, and the drivel you linked to is no exception. Every point he makes begins with an unfounded assumption that ignores a huge body of science & history. If this is his or your standard of proof, I have a bridge in Manhattan to sell you, cheap. It's okay, I'm trustworthy. It says so right on the TA blog. What motivation could I have to lie?

I substituted them because for there to have been writings, there must have been an oral tradition that preceded the writing, or are you saying the authors were themselves eyewitnesses to the resurrection? The story had to have a beginning, yes? What was the purpose of its genesis if the story at its conception is false?

The whole Jesus myth is a repetition of the same things said about numerous other gods that predate Jesus. Go look up Mithras, Horus, and Osirus for starters. There is nothing about Jesus that can't be attributed to an earlier god. Only the names have changed over the centuries.

How come Jesus himself would have left nothing in the way of writing? I've always found this odd. The four gospels were written by folks that (likely...) never met Christ. Reality is, one could go as far as to argue Christ himself maybe never even existed at all. Outside of the bible (which doesn't serve as solid evidence) there is very little documentation of his existence from the time he actually/apparently existed. For me this speaks volumes.

If he did leave any writings, what is the likelihood anyone would accept them as being authentic? He would have to do something miraculous to get people to realize that they are authentic, like writing on gold tablets and appearing to a guy in upstate NY to show them where they are at. Although I suspect if he did that we would still find ways to doubt their authenticity. ;)

The Christian response, however, is that he departed so the Spirit could come and indwell and communicate directly in such a manner that the writers were inspired when they wrote the scriptures. How do the Christians know that happened? The Bible says so! And around and around we go.